#15580: Integrate prereq in the new build system
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jdemeyer | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-6.1
Component: distribution | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: R. Andrew Ohana, | Reviewers: R. Andrew Ohana
Jeroen Demeyer | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: u/ohanar/prereq | 43b696f7f53f21e9a08f8a01a3fe0480e1c3a448
Dependencies: #15596 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jdemeyer):
Replying to [comment:14 ohanar]:
> Looks fine to me, so long as someone can review my reviewer commit. (It
is just restoring a small regression of `sage-sdist`.)
I don't think there is a regression to be fixed there. It's true that
`python setup.py` is run indeed because of my patch, but why is that a
problem? I never liked the `[ -z "$$SAGE_INSTALL_FETCH_ONLY" ]` in
`build/deps` and I want to remove that. The only reason I didn't do that
on this ticket is to avoid potential merge conflicts. And reusing the
`$(INST)/sage` build rule to copy the sources makes both `build/deps` and
`sage-sdist` harder to understand for no good reason.
So my proposal is still to merge my patch as-is, but of course I'm
listening to suggestions...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15580#comment:17>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
